Jill Sobule Goes Into The Studio With CwF+RtB
from the rock-on dept
Singer Jill Sobule was one of the more high profile musicians to successfully embrace a crowdfunded album using a tiered approach, successfully raising the money for her last album in less than two months. Sobule was kind enough to participate in our own CwF+RtB experience and even wrote up a nice guest post for us as well. In talking with both her and her manager, what came through was that the two of them really were working hard to understand this new world and how to thrive in it -- so I've been excited to see what they would come up with next. Of course, that's a bit misleading, because Jill's been constantly communicating and connecting with her fans via various social networking platforms, but now she's launching a small scale, but fun experiment in recording her next album: which is that she's selling a very limited number of tickets to spend time in the studio with her and John Doe (and apparently some surprise backing musicians).What's cool is that the different ticket offerings are well targeted for different types of fans. There's an all day pass for musicians who want to experience the entire process of making a professional album. There's a "creative patron" level that skips the morning setup, but picks up with the afternoon session, and finally there's a "music lovers" level that focuses on just the actual recording part. The goal of the offering by itself isn't to get rich, but to add some cool, valuable, scarce reasons to buy that also serve to better connect with fans. It seems like a cool experiment, and I'll be excited to see how it turns out.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cwf+rtb, jill sobule
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Show me the money!!
...which leads me to my next point.
Instead of reviewing CwF+RtB in an anecdotal fashion, is it possible to compare it in business case form with proper financial models? Has any work been done to create 3-5 year business forecasts, using common assumptions for size of fan base, number of concerts, distribution, sources of revenue, etc.? I haven't seen such a comparison but you may have already covered it. If so, I would seriously appreciate a link to the models. If not, I'd be interested to know if anyone else out there is also interested in taking a crack at creating such models. I'm regularly skeptical of the current effectiveness of CwF+RtB as an alternative to the traditional business model that is being destroyed by thieves, but that doesn't mean I don't want it to work. I like new content and unlike the content thieves I'd like the creative artists to remain motivated to keep producing.
Interested to hear your thoughts...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Show me the money!!
A few thousand actually (check your math skills...) and for something that normally *costs* money.
And, yes, the business model is scalable when done right. We've shown so many different examples at this point that it's laughable to even bring it up as not being scalable.
You seem to want to look at things in isolation. Josh Freese made tens of thousands of dollars beyond albums sales, plus he got free publicity, and you're complaining? Wow.
Jill financed over $80,000 for an album using this concept.
How is that not scalable?
Instead of reviewing CwF+RtB in an anecdotal fashion, is it possible to compare it in business case form with proper financial models? Has any work been done to create 3-5 year business forecasts, using common assumptions for size of fan base, number of concerts, distribution, sources of revenue, etc.?
But each of the implementations is different. CwF+RtB isn't a business model itself, it's an explanation for how you create the specific business model that works for you.
But to claim that it doesn't work or isn't scalable is proven false by the number of folks who have implemented things along these lines and found that they worked. You can't financially model the general offering, because each one is different. Josh wants to hang out at Disneyland and play minigolf. So that's his thing. Jill wants to hang out in the studio. Trent wants to sell fancy deluxe editions. Matthew Ebel wants to sell cheap subscription plans. Each one is a different implementation -- and each one has been shown to work.
I'm regularly skeptical of the current effectiveness of CwF+RtB as an alternative to the traditional business model that is being destroyed by thieves
McBeese, it's impossible to take you seriously when you make this claim.
Nothing has been "destroyed." And nothing is being stolen by thieves.
For the artists who are doing this, they're making much more money from it. Sobule never would have been able to finance an $80,000 production without her efforts last time around. How many people would have heard about or bought Josh Freese's stuff without his experiment? Matthew Ebel would still be working a day job.
What's being destroyed? What's been stolen?
unlike the content thieves I'd like the creative artists to remain motivated to keep producing.
When you make statements like that, you just look ridiculous. You honestly think that people who file share don't want creative artists to keep producing?
You cannot be taken seriously.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Show me the money!!
what common assumptions? common for 1980? What good are those gonna be in the digital world of 2010 and beyond?
traditional business model that is being destroyed by thieves
Thieves aren't destroying traditional models. They are a symptom not the root cause. Today's technology is destroying traditional models. Production, reproduction, distribution and marketing costs have dropped significantly. Thieves exist because some people still want to sell $1 plastic discs for $15 and digital files for $1 when it's possible to reproduce and distribute music for $0. The thieves are merely filling a gap in the market. Offer a reasonable product at a reasonable price and the thieves will, for the most part, disappear.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So it's all smoke an mirrors?
I'm a business guy. When you tell me a business can't be modeled, to me that says it isn't a business, it's an event. Or a lottery. NOT something a rational person would invest in, and investment is required to take new artists from start-up through their equivalents of Series A, B, and C.
I don't think of $80K as a scalable business. I think of that as a few months of runway for a start-up. I want to know more about how you turn $80K into $80MM without the traditional content sales. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm saying I don't see how it can be done. I'm open to being educated but nothing I've seen so far makes me think it's possible. I'm asking for your help, not your criticism.
Yes, I think people who take content that is for sale that they haven't paid for are thieves. You label them as 'infringers'. I get that. I don't care what you call them, they're taking something they have no right to take. We can agree to disagree on this point if you like and put it in the parking lot.
What is being stolen? The artist's right to charge for copies of his/her content. They used to be able to do that. They are being robbed of that now. What is being destroyed? The artist's ability to make a living by creating, producing, and selling content. People have decided to take music instead of paying for it simply because they can. To me, that is stealing. You call it what you want, but let's focus on the way forward because there's nothing you or I can do to stop what's happening.
I can't be taken seriously? Because we disagree? I don't think you or your blog can be taken seriously if you don't at least acknowledge the dark side of what's changing, and the downside that it creates for the artists. Yes, there is a potential upside, but there is a definite and real downside. The single largest source of an artist's income is disintegrating because of - in your words - infringement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So it's all smoke an mirrors?
Wait, what? Again, you are dealing with apples and oranges here. Based on your reasoning music HAS NEVER BEEN A BUSINESS, because you couldn't effectively model a single musician.
You are confusing micro and macro issues.
Can you model the macro? Sure, that's been done before. Look at how much money goes into the music ecosystem today, and compare it to ten years ago. It's gone up.
What we're discussing today is the micro aspects of how each player in the space captures that money.
I don't think of $80K as a scalable business. I think of that as a few months of runway for a start-up. I want to know more about how you turn $80K into $80MM without the traditional content sales. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm saying I don't see how it can be done. I'm open to being educated but nothing I've seen so far makes me think it's possible. I'm asking for your help, not your criticism.
Again, you're confusing the macro and the micro. If you were building a business (i.e., Topspin, Nimbit, ReverbNation, TuneCore, etc...) that aggregate a lot of individual artists together in some manner, then you could easily model those businesses. But our focus is on helping the individual artists.
Yes, I think people who take content that is for sale that they haven't paid for are thieves. You label them as 'infringers'. I get that. I don't care what you call them, they're taking something they have no right to take. We can agree to disagree on this point if you like and put it in the parking lot.
As I have discussed with you before, this is an important point. If you think they are thieves you will never understand this, and as a business person you are setting yourself up for failure.
This is not a small point on semantics. This is you making a huge mistake in basic understanding.
What is being stolen? The artist's right to charge for copies of his/her content.
There is no such right.
You can put a price on anything you want, but you can't make people buy. Based on your logic, Craigslist has stolen from newspapers by taking away their ability to sell classified ads.
It's called competition. It's not theft.
hey used to be able to do that. They are being robbed of that now.
This is wrong. You've always had and still have the ability to try to sell something. But if there's competition or market factors change, you WON'T SELL any more. That's all that's happening. Nothing has been stolen. No one has been robbed, and those putting in place smart business models are doing better than before. It's simply ridiculous to claim that people are having stuff stolen.
The artist's ability to make a living by creating, producing, and selling content
Again, that's blatantly false, and ridiculously so. We keep seeing MORE ARTISTS making MORE MONEY than ever before by embracing these new models. Saying that their ability to earn a living has been "stolen" is ignorance.
That's why I say you can't be taken seriously.
I can't be taken seriously? Because we disagree?
No sir. Not because we disagree. But because you say stuff that is FACTUALLY untrue, and obviously ridiculous.
I note that you didn't even answer my question, so I'll ask again as a point to prove why you can't be taken seriously:
Do you HONESTLY believe that people who download don't want creative artists to be motivated to keep creating content?
Yes, there is a potential upside, but there is a definite and real downside. The single largest source of an artist's income is disintegrating because of - in your words - infringement.
What downside? EVERY aspect of the business has become cheaper. Creation, promotion, distribution, connection, payment. Everything. Downside is what? More competition?
In the old system you had fewer artists, and the only way to make a living was to sign a deal with a big company who then chose you as one of the small chosen few. It was a lottery system.
Today a lot more artists are making money and making music than ever before.
I'm still trying to find the downside.
Is there a downside to the companies who stupidly relied solely on selling plastic discs? Yeah, there's the downside. But I'm not sure that's worth worrying about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: So it's all smoke an mirrors?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not a big money raiser, but good deal for the fan
So, she is selling 10 tickets at $200 = $2000
15 @ $125 = $1875
15 @ $75 = $1125
That's $5000 in a day.
Definitely not enough to live on, but that amount will cover perhaps that day's worth of recoding expenses and maybe a bit more for some other expenses.
It actually seems to be a pretty good deal for the fan. It makes more sense to me than some of the packages being offered by other artists. Watching the recording process in the studio is interesting (I've sat in on sessions with a variety of artists), and for someone who is a Sobule fan and has never been in a studio before, it should make for a memorable day.
I'm assuming Sobule won't be doing this frequently, but maybe she is planning to release a single a month, or something like that, and to sell seats to each recording session.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not a big money raiser, but good deal for the fan
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Not a big money raiser, but good deal for the fan
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Not a big money raiser, but good deal for the fan
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Show me the money!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a big money raiser, but good deal for the fan
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a big money raiser, but good deal for the fan
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Show me the money!!
The thanks I get emailed personally from an artist when I pay more to download their albums than they were expecting rather outweighs the righteous indignation of complete strangers. Please accuse me of stealing from one artist to give to another, it tickles.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a big money raiser, but good deal for the fan
The more people sponging off me, the more people forced to listen to the music I like. Considering how hard it is to meet people interested in the same stuff as me, I don't see the downside.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a big money raiser, but good deal for the fan
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: So it's all smoke and mirrors?
I don't think people who download content from illegal sources are thinking of anything other than themselves. I think they're too near-sighted and selfish to consider any associated aspect of artist motivation. Note: I'm not referring to legal downloads, which are much fewer in number and are not the problem.
"Based on your reasoning music HAS NEVER BEEN A BUSINESS, because you couldn't effectively model a single musician."
Quite the contrary, actually. It has been very easy to model a single musician or act. Each artist/act is a business, and yes, the business can be modeled. The simplified business model is content revenue + concert revenue + merchandise revenue + other revenues (royalties, appearances, etc.), less total costs. In this equation, content revenue used to be by far the largest (and predictable) component of revenue. Now, because of illegal file sharing, the largest and most predictable chunk of the revenue model is being significantly reduced. The associated cost of the plastic disks is an insignificant component of the total costs, so there has not been a corresponding drop in costs to go along with the drop in revenue.
I don't argue that artists can generate more income from the non-content related portions of the equation. Ticket prices for big-ticket acts have increased a lot. However, except in the case of bands that are already very successful (and got that way via the 'old' model), I don't yet see any scalable or reasonably predictable substitute for content revenue.
"You can put a price on anything you want, but you can't make people buy. Based on your logic, Craigslist has stolen from newspapers by taking away their ability to sell classified ads.
It's called competition. It's not theft."
No Mike, that's not my logic at all. Craigslist has not stolen anything, they've offered a competing service with a disruptive business model. If Green Day decided to compete with other bands by making all of their music free, I would have no problem with that. It's their music, it's their choice, and it's competition. That is NOT the same thing as people deciding by themselves to infringe on Green Day's copyright by making and distributing illegal copies of Green Day's music.
"In the old system you had fewer artists, and the only way to make a living was to sign a deal with a big company who then chose you as one of the small chosen few. It was a lottery system."
I disagree. It is no more of a lottery system than it is for tech start-ups to get funded by VCs. EVERY band that has broken through to the big-time will tell you what they did to get signed by a label. The years developing their talent, the years of playing for next to nothing in small venues, the years of giving their music away to get exposure, and the effort to find the right management who had the ability to promote them and get them in front of labels. The only artists (or tech start-ups) that think it's a lottery are those who don't have what it takes to go all the way. In the case of artists and tech start-ups, that is MOST of them.
Btw, doing what Jill Sobule is doing is not a new concept. I once paid to see the Rolling Stones play in a bar in Toronto as a warm-up for their upcoming tour. They screwed around and worked on arrangements, transitions, line-up order, etc.. Best concert I've ever experienced. Far better experience than seeing them in a stadium. But the price of admission, the T-shirts, and the posters we all purchased didn't pay for the gas in Mick's jet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: So it's all smoke and mirrors?
But you said that they want content producers to no longer create. That's why I said you can't be taken seriously.
On top of that, I think you have a very flawed and deeply incorrect view of many people who file share. Many do it because they love the artist and want more people to experience the same thing. What you think of as selfishness is the exact opposite.
Quite the contrary, actually. It has been very easy to model a single musician or act. Each artist/act is a business, and yes, the business can be modeled. The simplified business model is content revenue + concert revenue + merchandise revenue + other revenues (royalties, appearances, etc.), less total costs. In this equation, content revenue used to be by far the largest (and predictable) component of revenue. Now, because of illegal file sharing, the largest and most predictable chunk of the revenue model is being significantly reduced. The associated cost of the plastic disks is an insignificant component of the total costs, so there has not been a corresponding drop in costs to go along with the drop in revenue.
Wow. I'm afraid you are wrong. The costs have dropped precipitously. The cost of creation, promotion, distribution, communication have all dropped.
I don't argue that artists can generate more income from the non-content related portions of the equation. Ticket prices for big-ticket acts have increased a lot. However, except in the case of bands that are already very successful (and got that way via the 'old' model), I don't yet see any scalable or reasonably predictable substitute for content revenue.
Then you haven't been paying attention. I keep describing ways for artists to substitute the content revenue -- and, in fact, to make more money. And the reason they're making more money is because when the music, distribution, promotion etc. are free or much cheaper, you can reach a much larger fan base, so when you put that in your model, you end up making more money.
We've shown this with artist after artists after artist after artist. You would have to have a total blindspot to say there is no such evidence.
No Mike, that's not my logic at all. Craigslist has not stolen anything, they've offered a competing service with a disruptive business model. If Green Day decided to compete with other bands by making all of their music free, I would have no problem with that. It's their music, it's their choice, and it's competition. That is NOT the same thing as people deciding by themselves to infringe on Green Day's copyright by making and distributing illegal copies of Green Day's music.
You seem to be confusing the original owner and the reseller. That stems from your thinking that a copy is theft, rather than an increase in the market.
Out of curiosity, what age bracket would you put yourself in?
I disagree. It is no more of a lottery system than it is for tech start-ups to get funded by VCs.
That is a bit of a lottery system as well, you realize.
EVERY band that has broken through to the big-time will tell you what they did to get signed by a label.
Ah, I see, you're now changing the parameters and setting up false qualification. We're not talking about "broken through to the big-time" here. We're talking about making a living at the core.
And more and more people are able to do that, which is why more and more people are making music and making money from music. Corey Smith made $2 million last year. He wasn't signed to a label. The number of bands who sign to a label and never make any money is pretty large too.
Besides, with broadband only becoming really common in the last few years, you're making assumptions on the past, not on the trends of where things are heading. Give it time. There will be bands who "break through to the big time without a label" in the near future.
You're like the guys who said automobiles would never beat horse drawn carriages because they're too noisy. It's like you have a blinder for trendlines.
Btw, doing what Jill Sobule is doing is not a new concept.
Nor did I say it was.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Show me the money!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Show me the money!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a big money raiser, but good deal for the fan
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So it's all smoke and mirrors?
"The artist is the antenna of our [human] race." - Ezra Pound
"I'm a business guy." - McBeese
If you want to find out where artistic forms will be in the near future, ask an artist, not a business guy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So it's all smoke and mirrors?
Sure, I will accept that some infringers do it because they want to share their favorite music with others and 'spread the word'. However, I'll suggest (based on no data) that the majority of infringers are just taking music because they want it and sharing it so others can avoid paying for it.
"Wow. I'm afraid you are wrong. The costs have dropped precipitously. The cost of creation, promotion, distribution, communication have all dropped."
That's not the point I was making. The costs that have dropped are independent of whether or not content is free because the costs of producing and shipping physical CDs is a miniscule portion of the overall costs. The margins of the business are being eroded by content infringement. You can argue that the margins were too high if you want to, but that's a different argument based on nothing more than personal opinion on a band-by-band basis.
"You seem to be confusing the original owner and the reseller. That stems from your thinking that a copy is theft, rather than an increase in the market."
It's called infringement Mike, and it's against the law if the copyright owner doesn't grant permission to distribute. If a copyright owner doesn't want an increase in the market through unauthorized distribution, they may be stupid but it's still their call to make.
"Out of curiosity, what age bracket would you put yourself in?"
I would put myself in your age bracket, maybe 4 or 5 years older.
"Ah, I see, you're now changing the parameters and setting up false qualification. We're not talking about "broken through to the big-time" here. We're talking about making a living at the core.
And more and more people are able to do that, which is why more and more people are making music and making money from music. Corey Smith made $2 million last year. He wasn't signed to a label. The number of bands who sign to a label and never make any money is pretty large too.
Besides, with broadband only becoming really common in the last few years, you're making assumptions on the past, not on the trends of where things are heading. Give it time. There will be bands who "break through to the big time without a label" in the near future."
Ummm, have I not been clear since the first post that my issue is the scalability of the anecdote in this post?
I AGREE with you that it is easier today for more people to make money from music than it ever has been, despite all of the copyright infringement that is occurring. However, it seems to be a good recipe at the bottom of the market and I don't see a path - other than the traditional one - for new acts to break out of the bottom with a scalable and predictable business model that investors, labels, or whatever will be excited to get behind. Pay attention: That doesn't mean I don't think there is such a model, or that I don't want to see such a model, just that I haven't seen one yet.
Yes, I know all about the power of ubiquitous broadband. My first business was one of a group of companies that used broadband to disrupt the telecom industry and make telephone calls free. The legacy operators hated us and tried to stop us, but they couldn't because we didn't break the law, nor did we try to.
"You're like the guys who said automobiles would never beat horse drawn carriages because they're too noisy. It's like you have a blinder for trendlines."
No, I'm just someone investing in and trying to support a couple of new bands. Both are at the stage where CwF+RtB is the perfect recipe for them, no question. I'm trying to understand the growth curves, and I see lots of holes not solved by CwF+RtB, despite the individual anecdotes. My goal is to help find models that work. I'm not suggesting that yesterday's model is the right one, but nor am I going to pretend that working models for today and tomorrow are already available. Also, I (obviously) have no respect for infringing file-sharers, but I recognize that it's a fact of life now. Doesn't mean I have to like 'em.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So it's all smoke and mirrors?
Agree 100%. You'll note that my posts are based on what I view as unanswered questions - not pronouncements - and I will not be satisfied by partial or flawed answers.
Besides, business guys have a longstanding tradition of raping artists, and it will be difficult to preserve that tradition without understanding the evolving landscape. ;-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Show me the money!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So it's all smoke and mirrors?
Ok, so what, exactly, are your issues? We've shown how the system works for small, medium-small, medium-large and large artists. We've shown artists go from nobodies to make millions with it. And we've seen how it can be applied to all different types of artists.
I guess I'm just at a total loss as to why you think it doesn't scale?
Is it because it's not a one-sized-fits all solution, and actually works by customizing for each artist? That may have been a problem in the past, but these days, in an era where you can easily customize on the fly, it's no problem at all...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Show me the money!!
I've been in talks with people about this very topic. I'd love to exchange thoughts. My name should be linked to my Twitter URL, where you can find me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a big money raiser, but good deal for the fan
Yes, that is exactly what I meant. For shame!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Show me the money!!
But I don't pay for all content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: So it's all smoke and mirrors?
I refer you back to my earlier comment. How are pirates more selfish if they spend more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
from jill's manager
In her own words she's "a lifer". She's not going into another line of work so we try to leverage lots of ideas on many different financial levels to a) speak to her core fans, b) acquire new fans c) find interesting ways to finance / create projects that Jill is interested in *artistically*.
In this instance it means recording an EP with musicians that Jill loves, with the great Dave Way and having her pal John Doe do the same. What we end up with is a couple of EP's worth of material where otherwise none would exist and we give fans a chance to see what recording is all about.
Again: this is one event out of many that fulfill different needs for the artist, reach different groups of fans and allow Jill to continue to survive. All while providing goods and services that people seem interested in purchasing or being involved with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So it's all smoke and mirrors?
Incorrect. For an indie musician, having actual cds pressed (not burning them yourself) and having quality paper graphics (cover booklet, u-card jewel case insert, etc) professionally printed is one of the *largest* costs. The paper/printing costs are the highest expense.
Most dedicated musicians can get a fast computer, software, quality sound card and basic microphones and mic preamps (if those are required) together for production. If not, then they should be in the process of obtaining those things as those are the minimum items for doing business at all now.
Having the technical skill to record, mix and produce a decent-sounding record is another matter. Support personnel to help out in those departments might be around to help for free or at minimal cost. If not, those of us who have these skills today started at the beginning and learned. But I have a feeling there are many more capable audio recordist/producers floating around today than in decades past.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jebus
That said, I heard recently that Picasso would let you color in your very own shape on one of his late period works if you gave him $100 in cash. Not a bad deal!
[ link to this | view in thread ]